26-1009: Friday's "Export/Import Daily Bugle"

1. Today’s Federal Register (No items of interest.)
(Source: Today’s Federal Register)

2. Future Federal Register (Two items.)
(Source: Future Federal Register)

3. CBP Cargo Systems Messages
(Source: DHS/CBP/CSMS)

4. CBP: “ACE Portal – Addition of Verification Step for ACH Refund Changes – Coming 10 October 2026”
(Source: CSMS # 70162211, 9 Oct 2026)

   Beginning 10 Oct 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will require email or short message service (SMS) verification for Automated Clearinghouse (ACH) refund information changes made in the Automated Commercial Environment Secure Data Portal (ACE Portal).
   Following this update, authorized ACE Portal users will receive a security token via email, with the option to also receive it via SMS message, when attempting to add or modify ACH refund information within an ACE Portal importer sub-account.
   Security token verification will be required to successfully complete the ACH information change. In addition, other authorized users under the applicable importer sub-account will have the option to enable notifications and receive email or SMS message alerts following any ACH refund information changes.
   Following last month’s addition of SMS as an ACE Portal login authentication method, this additional verification step enhances ACE Portal security while maximizing flexibility for users.
   Detailed instructions on how to manage ACH refund information and associated email and SMS information for verification in the ACE Portal will be included in an upcoming update to the ACE Portal: ACH Bank Information for Electronic Refunds training guide.

5. CBP to Hold UFLPA Enforcement Statistics Dashboard Webinar 28 Oct 2026
(Source: OTR Webinars, [email protected])

6. Commerce/BIS (Nothing new.)
(Source: Commerce/BIS)

7. DSCA Updates SAMM Special Defense Acquisition Fund Inventory Report Requirements
(Source: Defense Security Cooperation Agency, 9 Oct 2026)

   DSCA posts Policy Memo 26-107 Update Special Defense Acquisition Fund Inventory Report Requirements. This memorandum updates the Security Assistance Management Manual (SAMM) with corrective action identified in the above reference to establish policies requiring the inclusion of inventory values in annual physical inventory inspection reports.
   Effective immediately, Implementing Agencies (IAs) must record and report the total inventory value of all Special Defense Acquisition Fund (SDAF)-procured defense articles during annual inspections, aligning physical inspection data with quarterly inventory reporting metrics.
   This memo updates:

8. State/DDTC (Nothing new.)
(Source: State/DDTC)

9. Treasury/OFAC Settles Charges Against Control and Pegasus Worldwide Logistics; Issues International Criminal Court Designations and General Licenses; Removes Burma-related Designations
(Source: Treasury/OFAC, 9 Oct 2026)

   The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) today announced a settlement with Pegasus Worldwide Logistics, a freight forwarding firm involved in cross-border shipments.
   Pegasus has agreed to remit $175,015 to settle its potential civil liability for four apparent violations of the Illicit Drug Trafficking Sanctions Regulations and six apparent violations of the Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations.
   Between September 2023 and February 2024, Pegasus dealt in blocked property by facilitating the importation of a machine supplied by a designated company. Pegasus also failed to respond fully for six months to an OFAC subpoena.
   OFAC is issuing:

   The SDN list has recently been updated. Visit this page to see the latest version of the SDN list.

10. US Trade Representative: “United States Seeks Mexico’s Review of Alleged Denial of Workers’ Rights at GLM Components Mexico”
(Source: USTR Press Office)

   The Office of the United States Trade Representative has invoked the Rapid Response Labor Mechanism (RRM) in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) to review whether workers at GLM Components Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (GLM Components), located in Puebla, Mexico, are being denied the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining.
   The United States has suspended liquidation of unliquidated entries of goods from the GLM Components facility, which manufactures auto parts. . . .
   A copy of the request for review can be found here.

11. White House Actions (No new items of interest.)
(Source: The White House)

12. Breaking Defense: “Pentagon, Lockheed Weigh Multi-Year F-35 Production, Sustainment Deal”
(Source: Breaking Defense News, 9 Oct 2026) [Excerpts]

   The Pentagon and Lockheed Martin are in discussions over a mega-deal for the company’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that could span up to a decade and include both production and maintenance for the stealth jet, according to people familiar with the negotiations.
   Officials have weighed an F-35 multi-year procurement contract for years, and the latest push comes as the Trump administration seeks to expand the use of long-term agreements to buy key weapons like munitions. A successful deal covering both production and sustainment of the tri-variant fighter could be worth tens of billions of dollars. . . .
   Milas said the potential agreement would potentially include “bulk buys” of spare parts, with the increased flow of components beginning around the jet’s 21st production lot, expected in roughly three years. Increasing the supply of spare parts is viewed as a key way to help raise the fighter’s dismal readiness rates. . . . [Full article]

13. Breaking Defense: “Pentagon, Raytheon Ink Up to $6.3 Billion Multi-Year Contract for SM-3 IB Missiles”
(Source: Breaking Defense News, 9 Oct 2026) [Excerpts]

   Raytheon has secured another multi-year munition deal, this time for up to $6.3 billion for Standard Missile-3 Block IB production, the Pentagon announced today.
   The base value of the five-year contract is $4.4 billion, but options include an additional nearly $2 billion for more of the air defense munitions over another two years. The announcement did not say how many of the missiles were under order. . . .
   Today’s announcement comes among a string of similar deals between the government and the RTX subsidiary. In recent weeks, the duo inked a $24.4 billion deal designed to “accelerate” production of the Standard Missile-6, a $22.9 billion contract to ramp up production of the Tomahawk cruise missile to 1,000 rounds a year, and a deal worth up to nearly $20.7 billion for production of the Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM).

14. Expeditors News: “CAPE Phase 3 Deployed”
(Source: Expeditors News, 8 Oct 2026) [Excerpts]

   In a declaration filed with the Court of International Trade (CIT), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced that the third phase of the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) refund system was successfully deployed on October 6, 2026.
   CAPE Phase 3 covers “finally liquidated entries filed by plaintiffs for which the Court has ordered reliquidation.” CBP stated that it notified counsel for the affected plaintiffs on the day of deployment. CBP’s declaration of Phase 3 deployment with the CIT can be found HERE.

15. National Interest: “We Now Know How China Got Sensitive F-35 Parts”
(Source: The National Interest, 9 Oct 2026) [Excerpts]

   The old proverb “For want of a nail, the war was lost”—an adage meaning that small mistakes can have far-reaching consequences—may need a 21st century update.
   Last month, it was revealed that China had likely obtained parts for the F-35 stealth fighter after a repair shipment from Australia to the United States was mistakenly redirected to Hong Kong. More recent reporting indicates that the mistake took place because a United Parcel Service (UPS) employee missed an email that warned against routing the shipment through the Chinese special administrative region.
   The F-35 parts—including a cockpit canopy and weapons-bay door—were on their way back to the United States for repair or possible disposal. The shipment arrived in South Korea as planned, but was then routed to Hong Kong.
   After the shipment arrived, the Chinese government took possession of the parts, which have not been returned to the United States. The concern is that the components could reveal details about the fifth-generation fighter’s radar-absorbing stealth coating. . . . [Full article]

16. ST&R Trade Report: “USTR Opens Door to Enforcement Measures Over EU Carbon Border Charges”
(Source: Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg Trade Report, 9 Oct 2026) [Excerpts]. Contact: [email protected], 1-305-894-1035

   The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is accepting comments through Nov. 9 on the current and potential impact of the European Union’s carbon border adjustment mechanism and what measures the U.S. may need to take in response.
   CBAM requires EU importers of covered products (currently iron and steel, cement, aluminum, fertilizers, electricity, and hydrogen) into the EU to pay the difference between the carbon price paid in the country of production and the price of carbon allowances under the EU’s Emissions Trading System.
   The EU began full implementation of CBAM on Jan. 1, 2026, but is considering proposals to expand coverage as of Jan. 1, 2028, to hundreds of additional products. USTR is therefore seeking comments on the following issues.

17. Akin: “DOJ’s New Fraud Division Issues Corporate Enforcement Directive”
(Source: Akin Alerts, 9 Oct 2026) [Editor’s summary]

* Principal Author: Gerald (Gerry) M. Moody Jr., Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

   On October 1, 2026, the DOJ's National Fraud Enforcement Division issued Directive 26-12, providing the first comprehensive statement of the Division's corporate enforcement policy. The Directive establishes enforcement principles, identifies priority investigative areas, creates a centralized corporate enforcement function, and outlines factors prosecutors must weigh in charging and resolution decisions.
   For corporate counsel, the most significant development is the Directive's emphasis on management involvement. Prosecutors are directed to give substantial weight to evidence that senior corporate personnel knew of, participated in, or concealed misconduct.
   Other important aggravating factors include obstruction, long-running schemes, significant financial losses, impacts on government programs, conduct spanning multiple federal districts, support for foreign adversaries, and immigration-related offenses.
   The Division's priority areas include health care fraud, government procurement and public-trust fraud, major revenue-evasion schemes, and trade-related and tariff-related fraud, including tariff evasion, import violations, and forced-labor matters.
   The Directive also formalizes the role of a new Corporate Enforcement Section, which will oversee corporate investigations, promote consistency in charging decisions, allocate resources, and monitor compliance with corporate criminal resolutions. Division prosecutors must report corporate investigations to the Section and keep it informed of significant developments.
   Notably, the Directive highlights two expanding detection mechanisms: advanced data analytics through the National Fraud Detection Center and planned whistleblower incentive programs. Together, these initiatives increase the likelihood that misconduct will be identified independently of a company's internal reporting process.
   The practical message for counsel is clear: companies operating in DOJ priority sectors, particularly health care, government contracting, federal funding, and international trade, should reassess compliance controls, evaluate potential exposure against the Directive's charging factors, and carefully consider voluntary self-disclosure strategies before DOJ learns of potential misconduct through data analytics or whistleblower reporting.

18. Dechert: “National Security Regulation & Investment Risk: Quarterly Update from Washington”
(Source: Dechert Law Update, 9 Oct 2026) [Excerpts]

   Key Takeaways:

19. Shapiro: “Meet the Supplier Family Tree. Who Is Actually Making Your Goods?”
(Source: Shapiro Shap Blog, 9 Oct 2026) [Editor’s summary]

   Many importers have strong relationships with their overseas suppliers, but they may not know who actually manufactures their products or where key materials originate. That information is becoming increasingly important for customs compliance, country-of-origin determinations, tariff issues, and forced-labor due diligence.
   A company listed as the seller may be a trading company or intermediary rather than the factory that produced the goods. To improve supply-chain visibility, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is expanding its voluntary Global Business Identifier (GBI) Test.
   The program is designed to help identify and connect the various businesses involved in producing and moving imported goods. Recent enhancements include new categories for intermediaries and upstream sources, additional fields describing each party's role, and expanded options for business identifiers. Participation remains voluntary.
   For importers, the practical lesson is straightforward: know who is making your products, not just who is selling them. Companies should be able to identify:

   This information becomes critical when responding to CBP inquiries, substantiating country of origin, addressing tariff issues, or demonstrating compliance with forced-labor requirements. Missing or incomplete supplier information can delay shipments and make compliance reviews more difficult.
   Importers do not need to map every supply chain overnight. A practical approach is to start with high-risk or high-value products, document who does what in the supply chain, retain supporting records, and establish procedures for reporting changes in factories or sourcing. Better visibility today can help avoid costly surprises when CBP asks questions tomorrow. [Full article]

20. ST&R Trade Report: “Lawsuits Remain Quickest Path to IEEPA Tariff Refunds Amid New Developments”
(Source: Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg Trade Report, 9 Oct 2026) [Excerpts]. Contact: [email protected], 1-305-894-1035

   New developments this week in the ongoing IEEPA tariff refund process highlight that filing a lawsuit with the Court of International Trade remains the surest, quickest way to obtain such refunds, particularly for importers of record with a substantial potential refund amount.
   On Oct. 8 Judge Eaton at the CIT granted class certification in the lead IEEPA tariff litigation for “all importers of record who paid [IEEPA tariffs] … between February 1, 2025, and February 19, 2026, excluding any entity that has separately filed an action seeking to recover IEEPA duty payments.”
   If this decision survives appeal, it could make it unnecessary for IORs to file individual lawsuits to obtain IEEPA tariff refunds, which would be particularly good news for smaller IORs with smaller potential refund amounts. However, the decision is likely to be appealed, and the federal government has until Nov. 23 to do so.
   If the decision is upheld, it could then take a substantial amount of time before it is finalized and yet another refund process is established. In addition, those falling outside the definition of the class – e.g., non-importers of record like sureties – may still need to file individual lawsuits to obtain refunds.
   Separately, U.S. Customs and Border Protection began on Oct. 6 processing IEEPA tariff refunds for finally liquidated entries (i.e., those more than 80 days liquidated) under Phase 3 of its CAPE system. Phase 3 is available for IORs that filed suit by July 30, 2026, and should be released soon for IORs that sued later. The court continues to enter reliquidation orders in these individual cases, and the government will not appeal those orders.
   As a result, STR continues to recommend that IORs with entries liquidated beyond 80 days file a lawsuit now to take advantage of the Phase 3 process at this time. Companies with less than $30,000 in refund exposure may consider waiting to see what happens in the courts with respect to class certification, but filing suit now should result in a quicker refund of IEEPA tariffs. . . . [Continue]

21. Tuttle Law: “CIT Certifies Class Action for IEEPA Tariff Refunds”
(Source: Author) [Summarized by Editor.]

* Author: George Tuttle, Law Offices Of George R. Tuttle, PC

   On October 8, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) issued its opinion in Freestyle World, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 26-01088, granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification in litigation challenging duties imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”).
   The certified class encompasses importers of record that paid duties pursuant to the challenged IEEPA tariff measures between February 1, 2025, and February 19, 2026, excluding importers that have commenced separate actions seeking recovery of such duties.
   Although the government opposed certification, the CIT concluded that the requirements for class treatment had been satisfied.
   The action seeks injunctive relief directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to liquidate or reliquidate affected entries without the disputed IEEPA duties, thereby facilitating refunds to class members.
   The CIT observed that CBP has already issued approximately $126 billion in refunds and interest through its Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (“CAPE”) system. However, the court noted that certain importers, particularly those with finally liquidated entries that did not file individual lawsuits, may remain unable to obtain refunds through existing administrative processes. The CIT determined that a single injunction could provide effective relief to the class as a whole.
   The decision is significant because it establishes a potential mechanism through which eligible importers may pursue recovery of IEEPA duties without instituting individual litigation. Nevertheless, the ruling addresses only class certification and does not adjudicate the merits of the claims or require CBP to issue refunds. The availability and implementation of any relief remain subject to further proceedings, and the government may seek appellate review of the certification order.

22. FD Associates Presents: “ITAR for the Empowered Official” Workshop Webinar 13 Oct 2026
(Source: Jenny Hahn, [email protected])

23. Export Compliance Solutions Presents: “Virtual ITAR/EAR Boot Camp” 13-14 Oct 2026
(Source: Marie Nicolo)

24. Mike Laychak Retires as Director of DTSA
(Source: Editor)

   Michael Laychak retired on 30 Sep 2026 from his position as Director, Defense Technology Security Administration (DTSA). Matthew D. Redding, formerly DTSA's Deputy Director, has been appointed Acting Director. Contact Mike Laychak at Laychak Consulting, [email protected], 724-703-2569.

25. List of Export/Import Job Openings
(Source: Editor)

RECENT:

FULL LIST (Includes above entries.):

   Bartlett's Annotated ITAR ("BITAR") (1 Oct 2026) and Bartlett's Annotated FTR ("BAFTR") (6 July 2026) are Word documents to download to your laptop to keep you updated on the latest amendments to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR 120-130) and the Foreign Trade Regulations (15 CFR Part 30).

   They contain over a thousand footnotes of errors in the official text, section histories, key cases, practice tips, Consent Agreements, glossaries, and extensive Tables of Contents. You download the updated edition when the regs are amended, so you'll always have the latest regulations.

   “But if the official on-line version of the ITAR is free, why subscribe to the BITAR?”

   Answer: Compare the BITAR with the Government's free version.

   You'll see why all export professionals must use the BITAR and BAFTR.

27. Bartlett's Unfamiliar Quotations
(Source: Brainy Quotes)

Friday Funnies:

28. Today in History
(Source: History Channel)

1963: Landslide kills thousands in Italy. On October 9, 1963, one of Europe’s worst dam-related disasters struck northern Italy. After months of unusually heavy rainfall, a massive landslide from Mount Toc collapsed into the reservoir behind the Vajont Dam at an estimated 70 miles per hour. The enormous volume of rock and earth displaced the water, creating a giant wave that surged hundreds of feet above the dam. Although the dam itself largely survived, the wave swept over it and thundered down the Piave Valley. Nearby communities were devastated, particularly the town of Longarone, which was destroyed within minutes. More than 2,000 people lost their lives. In the investigation that followed, questions focused on whether warning signs had been ignored during the planning and operation of the project. Mario Pancini, an engineer associated with the dam project, was called to testify about what was known regarding the area's landslide risks, but he committed suicide before appearing in court.

29. Do You Need to Update Your Daily Bugle Profile?
(Source: Editor)

   Don't miss an issue of the Daily Bugle if you change your email. Click here to manage your profile.

30. Are Your Copies of Export/Import Regulations Current?
(Source: Editor)

   The official versions of the following regulations are published annually in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) but are updated as amended in the Federal Register. The latest amendments are listed below.